Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

So far, Palin hasn’t said anything that the Republicans haven’t been saying for the last eight years. She’s proving herself to be little more than a parrot for the same old policies that have been given a nice little mask.

And after all the prep she’s had, they never told her the word is pronounced nu·cle·ar?

Yes I know she is only running for Vice President, but lets face it McCain is old and she is devious.

I have been reading as much as I can about Sarah Palin and frankly I am scared that the McCain/Palin team might actually win this election.

The main thing that scares me is the way she presents herself, even when she is hunting for a way out of the wet paperbag during interviews, she comes across as that attractive woman everyone knows from work, the library or coffee shop that seems intelligent but slightly ditzy in a cute 1950’s young wife stereotype kind of way.

That kind of woman has a serious advantage in the normal male to female and female to female dynamic in that most people don’t look past the ditz to see the danger. Others discount her ability to make choices, plans and enemies. People often believe that women like her are harmless and can be controlled. This may seem sexist, but it is just a facet of our current social environment. Like racism and homophobia, sexism dies hard, particularly when people are not even aware they are doing it.

Sarah has somehow managed to convice her supporters (most of republican party and many Hillary supporters) that her tenure as Mayor was a success and that leaving a town of 5k to 7k people with a 20 million dollar public debt, no sewers but a great sports complex makes her fiscally conservative and trustworthy steward of public interest. Forget the fact that Wasilla, AK had no debt when she took office, their annual budget was about $3 million dollars less when she got there than when she left and that she had implemented a personal jihad against those that stood up to her.

They seem to willingly overlook the fact she has admitted, proudly I might add, that she demanded the written resignations of all the top officials when she took office “as a demonstration to my administration”. Since when to public officials in the United States take an oath of fealty to the incumbent?

There has been some controversy over whether she wanted to ban books from the Wasilla public library. Sarah claims that she was only having a “rhetorical discussion” with the head librarian and she would never support banning books. This is an amazingly strange “rhetorical discussion” to have with anyone, much less a librarian, particularly one from whom you have demanded a letter of resignation to show loyalty to your administration. It is also peculiar timing that this “rhetorical discussion” occurred during a time when the church she attends regularly was in the midst of a petition drive to ban books in the public library, the school and in local book shops. The church apparently is not willing, yet, to claim their petition was only a rhetorical one.

I could repeat all the rumours and conspiracy theories here, but I will leave that for others to do. I just want people to think clearly about this woman and her abilities to misdirect attention.

Another great example is the GOP machine and Sarah backers who keep claiming she is enormously popular in Alaska. Funny thing is most interviews I have found with “regular citizens” pretty much declaim her as one step above a feudal lordling with an axe to grind. Not what I would deem popular by even the broadest standard.

So please do us all a favor, read up on her, seperate the wheat from the chaff, then go out a buy a snake to handle while you pray that the witch known as Sarah Palin flies away on her broom.

With all the talk about Sarah Palin and her latest question-evasions, I thought the economy has been getting less than it’s needed share of coverage. After all, just a couple of days ago the stock market was in a crisis, the DOW dropped around 400 points in a day, AIG pretty much went bankrupt, and gold set a record for most gain in a single day by ground from around $740 bucks a troy ounce to $860 a troy ounce.

More Americans are focusing on the economy, a place where John McCain has admitted he sucks at and Sarah Palin has established herself to be incapable of balancing a budget.

So for this crisis, what is Bush’s solution? Set aside 700 billion dollars to buy shit assets without a plan to have that money paid back.

Here, I’ll let you read for yourself.

Bush team, Congress negotiate $700B bailout.

Bush team, Congress negotiate $700B bailout
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writers 33 minutes ago

The Bush administration asked Congress on Saturday for the power to buy $700 billion in toxic assets clogging the financial system and threatening the economy as negotiations began on the largest bailout since the Great Depression.

The rescue plan would give Washington broad authority to purchase bad mortgage-related assets from U.S. financial institutions for the next two years. It does not specify which institutions qualify or what, if anything, the government would get in return for the unprecedented infusion.

Democrats are pressing to require that the plan help more strapped borrowers stay in their homes and to condition the bailout on new limits on executive compensation.

Congressional aides and administration officials are working through the weekend to fill in the details of the proposal. The White House hoped for a deal with Congress by the time markets opened Monday; top lawmakers say they would push to enact the plan as early as the coming week.

“We’re going to work with Congress to get a bill done quickly,” President Bush said at the White House. Without discussing specifics, he said, “This is a big package because it was a big problem.”

The proposal is a mere three pages long, but it gives sweeping powers to the government to dispense gigantic sums of taxpayer dollars in a program that would be sheltered from court review.

“It’s a rather brief bill with a lot of money,” said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman. “We understand the importance of the anticipation in the markets, but we also know that what we’re doing is going to have consequences for decades to come. There’s not a second act to this — we’ve got to get this right.”

Lawmakers digesting the eye-popping cost and searching for specifics voiced concerns that the proposal offers no help for struggling homeowners or safeguards for taxpayers’ money.

The government must bail out the financial system “because if we don’t, it will have a tremendous impact on American consumers, homeowners, taxpayers and the rest,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in San Francisco.

But, she added, “We cannot deal with this unless this bailout helps families stay in their homes.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. said “we cannot allow ourselves to be in denial about the threat now facing the world economy. From all indications, that threat is real, and the consequences of inaction could be catastrophic. Every single American has a stake in preventing a global financial meltdown.”

The proposal would raise the statutory limit on the national debt from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion to make room for the massive rescue.

“The American people are furious that we’re in this situation, and so am I,” the House’s top Republican, Ohio Rep. John A. Boehner, said in a statement. “We need to do everything possible to protect the taxpayers from the consequences of a broken Washington.”

Signaling what could erupt into a brutal fight with Democrats over add-on spending, Boehner said “efforts to exploit this crisis for political leverage or partisan quid pro quo will only delay the economic stability that families, seniors, and small businesses deserve.”

Bush said he worried the financial troubles “could ripple throughout” the economy and affect average citizens. “The risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package. … Over time, we’re going to get a lot of the money back.”

He added, “People are beginning to doubt our system, people were losing confidence and I understand it’s important to have confidence in our financial system.”

Neither presidential candidate took a position on the proposal. GOP nominee John McCain said he was awaiting specifics and any changes by Congress.

Democratic rival Barack Obama used the party’s weekly radio address to call for help for Main Street as well as Wall Street.

Their language reflected a tricky balance that politicians in both parties are trying to strike, just six weeks before Election Day: Back a plan that doles out hundreds of billions to companies that made bad bets and still identify with the plight of middle-class voters.

Besides mortgage help and executive compensation limits, Democrats are considering attaching middle-class assistance to the legislation despite a request from Bush to avoid adding items that could delay action. An expansion of jobless benefits was one possibility.

Bush sidestepped questions about the chances of adding such items, saying that now was not the time for posturing. “I think most leaders would understand we need to get this done quickly, and you know, the cleaner the better,” he said about legislation being drafted.

Treasury officials met congressional staff for about two hours on Capitol Hill on Saturday. Discussions centered on how the plan would work, and Democrats proposed adding the executive compensation limits and new foreclosure-prevention measures. Details of those changes were not available Saturday, as staff aides worked to draft them. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson conferred by phone for about 20 minutes in the afternoon, gauging how the negotiations were unfolding.

Among the key issues up for negotiation is which financial institutions would be eligible for the help. The proposed legislation doesn’t make it clear, leaving open the question of whether hedge funds or pension funds could qualify.

The proposal does not require that the government receive anything from banks in return for unloading their bad assets. But it would allow the Treasury Department to designate financial institutions as “agents of the government,” and mandate that they perform any “reasonable duties” that might entail.

The government could contract with private companies to manage the assets it purchased under the rescue.

Paulson says the government would in essence set up reverse auctions, putting up money for a class of distressed assets — such as loans that are delinquent but not in default — and financial institutions would compete for how little they would accept.

I understand the need for quick action in a case like this, but trying to rush through a bill of 700 BILLION dollars with only two days of debate and thus far no assurances that John Q is gonna be able to keep a roof over his head and little or no stipulations as to getting the money back aside from Bush’s word that “we’ll get a lot of it back over time”? Yeah, considering his track record I’m less than reassured.

Actually, I’m horrified.

Oh, I just loved the part about the national debt. From $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion if the bill passes. Whoopie.

In other news; 40 people in a Pakistan hotel were killed by a suicide bomber.

Barack Hussein Obama! Republicans have made a big deal out of using Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein, trying to imply that because his middle name is Hussein, Barack Obama must be some kind of radical Muslim terrorist. The underlying Republican theory is that people’s middle names reveal profound insights into their character.

So, who wants to place a bet that the political operators at Fox News and other Republican-controlled media will not give the same treatment to Joe Biden? Will they use Biden’s middle name every time they talk about him? Will they call him Joseph Robinette Biden?

Let’s be honest about this: Robinette is way more weird a middle name than Hussein. Hussein is the Arabic equivalent of Bob. Nowhere, but nowhere, is the name Robinette normal.

So far, Fox News has never used Biden’s full name: Joseph Robinette Biden. So, why does Fox News refuse to use Joe Biden’s middle name? Are they afraid of being politically incorrect and exposing the meaning of the name Robinette? Are they covering up an illegal immigrant invasion by French choreographers? Are they worried that their viewers will learn about Biden’s Robinettofascism?

Shocking revelation: Robinette is a girl’s name! So, just like Barack Hussein Obama must be an Arab Muslim, Joe Biden must be a girl!

Also, Robinette is a form of the name Robin, which means “bright fame”. And Joe Biden is famous… just like a false messiah! This all just goes to prove that Barack Obama must be the antichrist.

It’s elementary logic, see.

Obama cites faith as key to change, says today’s headline for the Boston Globe (Actually, it’s an Associated Press article - the newspapers don’t bother writing their own stories much any more).

Is it true? Is Obama right? Is faith the key to change?

Well, gosh, but that’s sure how it looks with the FISA Amendments Act.

Barack Obama says that the FISA Amendments Act isn’t a cover up of Bush’s criminal spying against millions of Americans without any criminal suspicion, any search warrant, or any notification of any court as required by law and the Constitution. Yet, the FISA Amendments Act gives retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that helped George W. Bush break the law, preventing information about the illegal program against the American people from entering the public record. Gosh, that sure looks like a cover up. Oh, but Barack Obama says it isn’t, so have faith, and don’t think about it any more.

Barack Obama says that the recent Inspectors General report into illegal hiring practices is a “strong example” of how there might still be some accountability for Bush’s crimes, in spite of the FISA Amendments Act blockage of the normal forms of investigation. Yet, the Inspectors General report that Obama cites resulted in no accountability whatsoever for anyone responsible for the crimes it describes. Gosh, that doesn’t look anything at all like a “strong example” of accountability. Oh, but Barack Obama says it’s true, so have faith, and just don’t think about it any more.

Barack Obama says that the FISA Amendments Act will stop George W. Bush’s massive programs of physical searches of Americans’ homes and eavesdropping on Americans’ electronic communications. Golly, if you take the time to read the FISA Amendments Act, though, it allows the President to continue those programs, without any actual restraint. Oh, but Barack Obama says that all the spying is going to stop, so have faith, and don’t worry your little head about it any more.

Barack Obama says that the FISA Amendments Act restores the exclusive jurisdiction of the FISA court to control George W. Bush’s big spying programs against Americans. Gee whillikers, though, the FISA Amendments Act that I’ve read actually gives the Attorney General of the United States the exclusive power to both operate the spy programs against Americans and to be the watchdog of those same spy operations. The FISA Amendments Act that I’ve read actually cuts the FISA court OUT of the process. Oh, but Barack Obama says it isn’t so. He says it’ll be okay. He says you don’t have to worry. He says yes you can send him a big donation. So, have faith.

See, with the power of faith, there can be change! The change in this case, is that the FISA Amendments Act and its attack on the Constitution gets passed, but who needs to be picky?

Change is change, right? Who cares about the details?

Yes we can! Baaa! Change we can believe in! Baaa! Hope! Baaa!

At best, I was a half-hearted supporter of Obama’s. I was never overly enthused by him, though there were some periods where I thought I’d be able to call myself an Obama supporter with a measure of dignity. Over the last few weeks, that illusion has been shattered.

For all his talk and all his charm, Obama’s showing me now what I can expect in the future; more of the same old G.W.B. bullshit. As I look on his stances on the FISA amendments and now the faith-based bullshit, I can’t help but be left to reflect on our current situation.

Over the last 8 years, two presidential terms, George Bush has pulled some of the most unlawful actions in American history with impunity. Anything he wanted, he got on a golden platter. Anything illegal he did was turned a blind eye to by those sworn to uphold the rule of the law. I am now convinced that this attitude has forever ruined American politics and will lead us into a new age where corruption runs unchecked.

Obama now knows he’s got a 50-50 chance of getting the presidency and that Americans are pretty pissed at Republicans so the pressure’s pretty well off him now. And he’s been shown that the president can snub his nose at the law and Congress will roll over like the impotent, toothless tiger that it’s become.

And really, what choice do we, the people, have but to grin and bear it? There’s nothing that I know of which can force a reform to the corrupt politicains we now have in office. There’s no third party I can vote for because rarely, if ever, does a third party get on the ballet here in Oklahoma. Any time a third party gets media attention, it seems, it is laughed down until it crawls back under it’s rock.

The only thing I can think of, which I’ve mentioned before, is revoke the guarenteed spots on the ballots for Republicans and Democrats, but I know that won’t happen with the government the way it is now. I honestly want to know what can be done to change the way things are. I know, call my senator and voice my opinion, but even then the shit that shouldn’t be passed through congress is still being passed.

I thought I was going to vote this year, but I’m now seeing myself with the same options as when I thought Hillary Clinton was going to get the nomination; a choice between a Republican and a Republican Lite. Which one will shit on the Constitution less?

Obama, I thought you were the voice of change, I thought you were a voice of hope, but now I see what’s under the sheep’s clothing and I’m not impressed.

Will America ever return to the way it was before Bush got into office?

I just quit MoveOn. It isn’t because I disagree with their politics. It’s because they have compromised their politics.

Just yesterday, I got an email from MoveOn expressing their opposition to H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act. That’s the right stand, because the FISA Amendments Act is a terribly abusive law that violates the Constitution and breaks trust with the American people. It allows massive, unrestrained spying programs by the government against American citizens, without any search warrant or any form of probable cause required.

The people who voted for the FISA Amendments Act won’t tell you this. They’ll tell you that the powers granted under the bill are just fine, and there’s nothing to worry about. But, have you actually read the legislation? Don’t believe what they tell you until you’ve read the bill yourself.

It’s bad enough that 105 Democrats in Congress turned coat and joined forces with George W. Bush to pass the FISA Amendments Act. What’s worse is that Barack Obama has announced he will join them. Barack Obama is betraying the supporters who helped him win the Democratic nomination.

What about MoveOn? They’re pretending nothing has happened. They’re moving ahead with fundraisers for Barack Obama.

That’s not the kind of politics that MoveOn is supposed to stand for. That’s why, until they repudiate Barack Obama or convince Barack Obama to change his position, I have quit MoveOn.

I encourage you to do the same. Here’s the short message I sent to Moveon explaining why I’ve quit.

“Barack Obama just endorsed the FISA Amendments Act. MoveOn says it’s against that law, as it should. It’s a betrayal of the Constitution and an abuse of our trust. Barack Obama should lose the endorsement of MoveOn because of this betrayal. When MoveOn repudiates Barack Obama, I will rejoin MoveOn. Until then, I will not be with you - and no bake sales for Obama.”

Are you feeling wistful at the news that Barack Obama has clinched the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination? Did you have another first choice? Hillary Clinton, maybe, or Christopher Dodd, or John Edwards? Well, here’s a way to express that wisty feeling while still supporting Barack Obama in the general election:

On this, the day when Barack Obama finally clinches the Democratic nomination, there are two different ways to look at what lies ahead. One way is to say that all the work is finally over. People who follow that way will let the summer begin, and not even think about lifting a finger to support Barack Obama until September.

That’s a tempting way, because it’s an easy way. There’s a problem with it, though: Do you think that John McCain and the Republicans will take that approach?

Don’t you bet on it. The trouble is that, with the long Democratic primary, the Democratic National Committee has almost no money left. The Republican National Committee, on the other hand, has a lot of money - about 40 million dollars on hand.

With that money, within the week, the RNC is going to start sending out vicious attack ads against Barack Obama. They’re going to try to make Obama into mud before he even has the chance to start his general election campaign.

Are you going to let that happen? No? Okay. Then there’s the second way: That way is to get to work NOW, to help the Barack Obama for President campaign hit the ground running, prepared to deal with the nasty Republican attacks to come.

To take this second proactive approach, I suggest two steps:

1. Go to Barack Obama’s official campaign web site and sign up as a volunteer. You don’t need to give money, but giving your time is essential.

2. Get a bumper sticker for your car, a button for your jacket and a lawn sign for your yard. These all spread the message that ordinary people, folks who live in your neighborhood, support Barack Obama. That kind of statement is much more effective than an impersonal television commercial, no matter how slick it is. This campaign is going to have to be a grassroots one, and showing campaign gear is a great way to demonstrate a grassroots Obama presence in your community.

Here are some sources we’ve got for Obama campaign gear:

- Obama 2008 t-shirts made in the USA made over at Skreened

- Campaign Lawn Signs and Banners for Obama

- Obama bumper stickers over at My President and New White House

- Barack Obama campaign buttons and magnets over at Irregular News

Each of these different sources has unique Barack Obama campaign gear so that you can stand out with a pro-Obama message that’s just right for you - to keep. This stuff will have greater historical meaning as the years pass, and you’ll be able to take these things out to prove to your children and grandchildren that you were there, helping to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States.

Democracy is about the will of the people, right?

In a democracy, the will of the people is expressed through their votes, right?

Well, if you count up all the votes from all the primaries, who has the most?

Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has the most votes.

The will of the people is for Hillary Clinton to be the next president.

Tennessee Representative and superdelegate John Tanner endorsed Hillary Clinton for President yesterday, in news ignored by the Mainstream Media but just as important in determining the outcome of the national presidential primary election! Congressman Tanner is just the sort of moderate American politician who appeals to ALL Americans, and his decision to support Hillary Clinton is a sign that Hillary Clinton can and WILL WIN in November. Says Tanner, “In my opinion, the best person to lead this critical effort is Hillary Clinton. Hillary is a smart, pragmatic leader who understands the grave situation our country faces, with a $9 trillion debt, much of which is borrowed from foreign countries. Now, more than ever, our nation needs a leader like Sen. Clinton who can work with others to return to fiscal sanity.”

Barack Obama is a nice young man, but he just decided to run for president last year. Hillary Clinton has been part of running the country for SIXTEEN YEARS! With John Tanner’s help, I will be proud to see my new president, Hillary Clinton, take the oath of office on January 20, 2009.

The presidential primary in North Carolina comes soon, in less than a month, on May 6. So, is it too late for you to register to vote in the primary? Not at all. The voter registration deadline is this month.

That’s an invitation for election manipulation.

North Carolina’s primary is semi-open, meaning that independents can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary, just by showing up at a polling station on the day of the election and saying which party’s primary they want to vote in.

That’s bad enough, but the election deadline just weeks before the North Carolina presidential primary is practically an invitation for people of one political party to re-register as members of the other party in order to meddle in the other party’s election. This year, with John McCain already selected as the nominee of the Republican Party, there is no reason for North Carolina Republicans to go vote in their own party primary.

Instead, those North Carolina Republicans, along with the state’s mostly right wing independents, can flood into the Democratic presidential primary, and vote for the candidate that matches their values. There’s even the possibility that Democratic voters could be outnumbered by Republicans and independents.

Why would any state arrange for such a corrupt primary election system?

All Easter weekend long, we heard radio voices weighing in on Obama. How do white people feel about his blackness, how do black people feel about his whiteness? Absent from the discussion is any awareness of what he’s actually done. Where has he landed his punches? During Obama’s brief political career thus far, what issues has he acted on? Much has been made of his pastor’s disparaging comments about America and 9/11. So has Mr. Obama spent his young senate days hanging with the fringe wing of the Democratic party that pushes 9/11 conspiracy theories? Has he lent his voice to the view that 9/11 was Americas just comeuppance? No. If anything, Mr. Obama was a bit timid as a young senator, watching in dismay as his idealistic bits of legislation got watered down over time.

Obama himself is a bit of a Rorschach Test, in that commentators superimpose on him what they think should be there. For this reason, Obama is often linked to Black Liberation Theology. This is silly, because he was never a radical. In his youth, he never went through a Chicago Seven phase, all fist-pumping, Bobby Seal haircuts and incendiary speeches. If anything, Obama was an eager but cautious Harvard law student with an eye on social justice issues, but apt to keep his options open. Not “options open” in a cynical sense, not soft-pedaling his views, but rather, living according to a belief that brash, extreme opinions only alienate those who might otherwise be your allies. Like many young black leaders, Obama saw the limitations of racially-charged politics, the futility of replacing one racial stereotype with another. Thus, he would find ways to discuss inflammatory issues in reasonable, nuanced tones.

It looks like this year, America has a candidate that prefers to shed light, rather than heat. Are we up for it? If Obama loses, it won’t be because he’s black. It’ll be because America’s not ready for a President that talks to you as if you have a brain.

Last night Barack Obama campaign staffer Christopher Hass admitted that Senator Obama relies on the help of his subordinates to run his campaign for him:

“Thank you to everyone who helped canvass, made phone calls, and contributed to one of the largest voter registration drives that Pennsylvania has ever seen, resulting in a record number of registered Pennsylvania Democrats.”

See? Barack Obama is a weak, weak man who cannot be Commander In Chief from Day One! He can’t even campaign for President on his own. He needs helpers to go out and make telephone calls to make things easier for him!

They said this on Barack Obama’s official campaign web site!

Barack Obama isn’t strong enough to stand up to his opponents. Also, he is being too tough on Hillary Clinton.

Furthermore, Barack Obama was made a secret genetic Muslim as a toddler, in a ceremony by his atheist father. That’s why I’m glad that Hillary Clinton has exposed Barack Obama’s terrible involvement in the Christian Trinity Church in Chicago.

Finally, Obama’s feet smell… and he doesn’t like oatmeal!

Obama bad man!

On CNN, March 1, 2008, Hillary Clinton warned against making Barack Obama the Democratic presidential nominee, saying, “…everyone knows that John McCain will make this election about national security, that is a given. And it will be imperative that we have a nominee who is able to stand on that stage with Senator McCain, and I believe I am the person best able to do that.”

That, in a nutshell, is what’s wrong with the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. In a year when the Republicans are weak, she plans on allowing the Republican nominee to determine what the election is about. In the meantime, she will just stand on the stage, content to be there.

Barack Obama understands that the strongest Democratic presidential nominee will be the one who doesn’t wait around for the Republican to set the terms of the election. Barack Obama has the key concepts to set the terms of the election according to strong progressive Democratic values, not according to mere response to Republican tactics.

Democrats deserve a nominee who doesn’t begin the race by surrendering the terms of the contest.

I was deeply disturbed to read this afternoon that Joel Osteen’s megachurch in Houston was an official stop on the Hillary Clinton for President campaign today. Every time I see Joel Osteen, with his insincere smile and gospel of divinely sanctioned wealth, I feel dirty. The man is so slick he fairly drips with snake oil, leaving a trail behind him as he leaves his stadium for Jesus.

Hillary Clinton’s political advisors might want to consider: If you win the Democratic nomination through an appeal to the followers of hucksters like Osteen, you’ll do so without the respect of many Democratic voters outside the Bible Belt. Of course, Democratic politicians have been campaigning on a neglect of Democratic voters for a long time, and getting away with it.

Maybe Clinton’s advisors have calculated that the number of Democrats repulsed by the connection with Osteen will be made up for by the number of evangelical Republicans impressed by it. Within Texas, of course, a Democrat is merely a Republican who has trouble pronouncing the “R” sound, so I suppose the Bible thumping will play well there.

Supporters of Hillary Clinton are getting very upset that their candidate, who they thought a few months ago was “inevitable”, is now losing to Barack Obama. They’re using arguments against Barack Obama that just don’t make any sense.

One of my favorite arguments they use is that Barack Obama will never be able to withstand attacks from the Republican Party because the only Republican he’s ever had to run against is Alan Keyes. What these Hillary Clinton supporters don’t seem to understand is that such an argument only works in Hillary Clinton’s favor if Barack Obama is not winning in the electoral competition against Hillary Clinton.

Think about it for just a little bit. If Barack Obama really is such a sissy wimp who will be ripped apart by the Republicans, and Hillary Clinton is such a tough campaigner who can take on anybody, then how come Hillary Clinton is losing to Barack Obama?

Another argument that Hillary Clinton supporters have begun to use that I really don’t like is that Barack Obama will be defeated by the Republicans because he isn’t Republican enough. This argument suggests that the Democrats ought to nominate a Democrat who supports Republican policies, in order to get the Republican vote. It’s the best justification that they can come up with for Hillary Clinton’s vote to help George W. Bush go to war in Iraq.

That argument was used by Thomas Buffenbarger, a Clinton supporter in Youngstown, Ohio who took to the stage at a Clinton rally yesterday to warm up the crowd before Hillary Clinton herself arrived. He didn’t speak much in praise of Hillary Clinton. Instead, he attacked Barack Obama. Here’s a sample Buffenbarger had to say:

“The Barack show is playing to rave reviews sold out at college campuses after college campus. Standing room only crowds to hear his silver-tounged orations. Hope, change, yes we can? Give me a break! I’ve got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak. This guy won’t last a round against the Republican attack machine. He’s a poet, not a fighter.”

This latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing slur ought to sound familiar. It’s the same attack that the Republican Club For Growth used against Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2004. Why are surrogates for Hillary Clinton using Republican attakcs against Barack Obama?

I would like for the Hillary Clinton campaign to come out and explain what it has against lattes, and why Birkenstocks are to be hated. I would really love for Hillary Clinton to explain why she is arranging for people to speak on behalf of her campaign who hate hybrid cars.

I’ve got news for the Thomas Buffenbargers of the Democratic Party: If you think that you can arrange for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination by attacking environmentalists, attacking young people, attacking institutions of education, and for goodness sakes attacking people who like coffee, you’ve got another thing coming.

Me Ooma. Me come from Bloodfang Clan. Me for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton say Obama bad. Hillary Clinton say, “It’s about picking a president who relies not just on words, but on work, hard work, to get America back to work!”

Obama rely on words. Bad man. Bad, bad word man. He no work. Lazy man go Senate take nap. Lazy Harvard Law Review President. Lazy lazy community organizer. Lazy professor use words man! Bad. Obama no smash rocks!

Hillary Clinton no rely on words. Hillary Clinton no talk. Hillary Clinton work. Hillary Clinton be good president smash rocks.

That why Hillary Clinton say — Wait!

Hillary Clinton say?

Hillary Clinton use words! Hillary Clinton rely words! No worky! Hillary Clinton no smash rocks hard work? Hillary Clinton two face word user!

Me Ooma say — Wait!

Ooma say?

Ooma rely words! Bad Ooma! Bad Bad talky Ooma!

Ooma go smash rocks!

I was listening to the speech that Hillary Clinton gave recently at the Wisconsin Founders Day Gala this afternoon, and I just couldn’t help getting a tear in my eye when I heard Senator Clinton talk about her strong leadership on the issue of the war in Iraq. She said,

“We also have to do everything we can to make it clear that restoring our leadership and our moral authority in the world starts with ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home responsibly and quickly. I have said that I will start bringing them home within the first 60 days. From my position on the Senate Armed Services Committee I’ve been working to make sure that we are prepared to do that.”

This is what Barack Obama supporters are so unfair about. They never give Hillary Clinton credit for making America ready to bring soldiers home from Iraq in 60 days. Hillary Clinton has been working hard on the Senate Armed Services Committee, getting everything in place, and standing strong against the Bush Administration, like she has from the start on the issue of Iraq.

Finally, American soldiers are ready to come home within 60 days. Everyone recognizes that. But, as usual, no one is willing to give Hillary Clinton credit. There’s that glass ceiling again.

Without Senator Clinton’s hard work on the Senate Armed Services Committee, getting a firm withdrawal date set and pushing President Bush to accept the Democratic position on the war, we would still be in the middle of a war without any direction, and without any end in sight.

I will give credit where credit is due. Thank you, Hillary Clinton, for making this possible from your position on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

If we had listened to you from the beginning, Hillary Clinton, we never would have invaded Iraq in the first place. I will never forget the strong speeches you made trying to get Americans to wake up to the gathering danger of an unwise rush to war. Thank you, Hillary Clinton, for your forward vision.

It’s that vision, seeing the best course in matters of war and peace before anyone else, that makes Hillary Clinton my choice for President of the United States.

Barack Obama has got the endorsement of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The hometown newspaper explains,

Who wants to relive the soap operas of the 1990s?

Bill Clinton says his wife excelled at “making positive changes in other people’s lives.” Consider that construction. Then listen as Obama talks of bringing people together to change their own lives.

America needs a fresh start. Barack Obama is the Democrat to provide it.

Ohio Treasurer Richard Cordray has also endorsed Barack Obama, and was out in Youngstown campaigning for him yesterday.

Obama has the endorsement of Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman too.

Of course, the endorsement that matters is the endorsement of Ohio’s voters, and that won’t be given for another two weeks.

Whatever happened to the days when people would patiently wait in line for their turn? The great unspoken issue of the 2008 Democratic presidential election is that it is not Barack Obama’s turn to be President. It is Hillary Clinton’s turn.

For all of her life, Hillary Clinton has selflessly worked to promote her husband Bill. She has put up with more Monica Lewinskies than we will ever know about. But has Hillary Clinton stepped out of line? No, she has waited, patiently, for her turn.

With all that Hillary Clinton has been through, she deserves to be President of the United States. People in the Democratic Party who have any sense of decency can understand that. Others, who are trying to push their way ahead in line, need to remember their place.

Let’s set this issue straight with some direct documentary facts proving that Barack Obama was against the Iraq war from the start - before the war began, and has stood by that position. These videos have historical footage of Barack Obama speaking out against the Iraq War before it was begun, and since then.

Barack Obama’s rivals cannot produce such video documentation of their early and consistent opposition to the Iraq War. There’s a simple reason why. They were in favor of starting the Iraq War from the start.

John McCain was an eager booster of invading and occupying Iraq. McCain even said that the whole operation would be quick and easy.

Hillary Clinton supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq from the start too. Since then, what’s Hillary Clinton’s position on Iraq? That’s really difficult to say - I’ll let Clinton boosters try to explain it. The simple fact is that Hillary Clinton gave her assistance to George W. Bush and helped him start the war. When a million Americans took to the streets to demonstrate popular opposition to the invasion of Iraq, Hillary Clinton did not join them. In fact, Hillary Clinton spoke out against the agenda of the antiwar protests.

Has Barack Obama always done exactly as I would have liked him to do on the issue of Iraq? No. However, only one presidential candidate has gotten it anywhere close to correct on Iraq from the start. Thus, only one candidate deserves our support for President of the United States. That candidate is Barack Obama.

I was just having a conversation about the 2008 presidential election, and the reasons that so many people have decided to support Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Some people might express it in terms of which candidate is better able to strongly campaign against John McCain. Bill Clinton himself has said that Hillary Clinton and John McCain are such great friends that any campaign between the two of them would probably put voters to sleep if they ran against each other. Bill Clinton couldn’t seem to understand that such a thing would be unattractive to Democrats.

What the trouble of a Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain presidential campaign boils down to, however, is that Hillary Clinton is just too much like John Kerry. She’s got the same vulnerabilities, the same indefensible position of criticizing the Iraq War while refusing to say that it was a mistake to start the war, and having gone along with Bush’s whole Iraq invasion idea from the start. Hillary Clinton was for the Iraq War before she was against it.

Not Barack Obama. Barack Obama was against the Iraq War before he was against the Iraq War.

It’s honesty time. Although I’ve written some things in favor of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, the truth is that there are a lot of things about Barack Obama I don’t like. Here they are:

- Playing footsie with anti-gay sentiment. It’s not just Donnie McClurkin. Look at his statements against gay marriage.
- Antiwar record gone soft. The military occupation of Iraq is a useless drain of hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands upon thousands upon thousands of lives lost. Can we please just end it?
- Against impeachment, and wouldn’t even support censuring Bush.
- Promotes new coal burning technology
- Seems to think he really is as charismatic as everyone says he is
- Tries to play both sides on separation of church and state
- Isn’t talking about undoing the Bush laws that take away civil liberty

These things about Barack Obama bug me. Still, I think he’s the better choice on the Democratic side. An honest supporter can admit imperfections. Can Hillary Clinton’s supporters be as honest about her many flaws?

Given the considerable dominance of Bill and Hillary Clinton in New York State Democratic party politics, it was never a question that Hillary Clinton would get the largest share of presidential convention delegates in the 2008 primary. What is surprising, however, is that she had to work so hard in New York State to maintain her victory.

Barack Obama made a surprisingly showing in the New York State Democratic presidential primary yesterday. Hillary Clinton got 91 congressional district delegates, with Barack Obama not far behind at 60 delegates.

The solid wrap-up of New York’s large number of delegates wasn’t delivered. That will make it all-the-more challenging for Hillary Clinton to get the presidential nomination, and leads to the question of how much New York State Democrats really approve of the job Hillary Clinton is doing for them in the U.S. Senate.

You shouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton because her husband Bill Clinton abused his power when in office? What an outdated, outmoded and frankly sexist way of looking at things, as if a woman inherits the sins of her husband. As if! What’s next? The return of the “rule of thumb” whereby a woman can be beaten by a small stick, just don’t make it too big? Hillary Clinton should be judged on her merits, not the demerits of Slick Willie. And Hillary Clinton has the greatest command of detail of any of the presidential candidates including John McCain. Hillary Clinton is prudent in her pursuit of policy options, not wild crazy and out of hand. Hillary Clinton doesn’t have to be a good or bad president for women. Hillary Clinton has to be a damned good president for EVERYBODY. I am confident that with her diligence and her attention to detail, she will be. Hillary Clinton will never give up on you. Don’t you give up on her.

We’ve been writing about the Protect America Act here at Irregular Times now for about six months, so our regular readers know the danger of the law, which allows functionally unrestricted electronic spying against American citizens by the U.S. government. The FISA Amendments Act, which would renew the Protect America Act, and make its spy powers permanent, is now being debated in the Senate, but an equivalent law, only lacking telecommunications corporate immunity, has already been passed.

Though that House vote is done with, there still is something that can be done about it. Punish the Democrats who betrayed the American people by voting in favor of government spying against us.

In Georgia, one of the congressional Democrats who has been targeted by outraged Democratic voters is Representative Jim Marshall. Jim Marshall has a long record of collaboration with the Bush Republicans. He voted for Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act, and for starting the Iraq War too. Whenever a vital vote comes up in Congress, Jim Marshall falls in with the failed ideology of George W. Bush.

Democrat Robert Nowak has stood up to challenge Jim Marshall in this year’s congressional primary. But, is Nowak a better Democrat than Jim Marshall? Oh, you bet he is.

Here’s what Robert Nowak has to say about Jim Marshall’s support for the Protect America Act, and its programs of government spying against law-abiding American citizens:

“The latest demand from President Bush, that the US Congress shield telecommunication providers from liability for breaking federal law, is a real step backwards in the important mission of authorizing an effective intelligence surveillance program. Congress should not give blanket immunity for any unlawful acts, and it should renew its call for increased oversight of the telecom providers that may have broken federal surveillance laws.

Further, the US Congress must not budge in insisting that any surveillance program with the capability of eavesdropping on US citizens be subject to court oversight.

Congress should insist on codifying in the statute a court order requirement for any surveillance done on American citizens.

This last August, Representative Marshall voted for a temporary bill that allowed for expanded wiretapping and surveillance on Americans without a court order. Allowing that regime to continue is unacceptable.”

In dissecting what went wrong for Hillary Clinton in South Carolina, some attention needs to be given to the issue of time. Exit polls show that Clinton’s greatest segment of support came from people who had made up their minds over one month ago.

That means that it’s likely that something happened in the last month that made undecided voters choose to not vote for Clinton. What was it that happened? It’s hard to say for sure. It might have been Barack Obama’s come-from-behind victory in the Iowa caucuses.

On the other hand, it might have been the attacks that went back and forth between the Clinton and Obama campaigns over the last couple of weeks. The same exit polls show that while 70 percent of voting South Carolina Democrats thought that Clinton’s attacks against Obama were unfair, only 57 percent of voting South Carolina Democrats thought that Obama’s attacks against Clinton were unfair.

Whatever the reality of which attacks were accurate and fair, it seems that Clinton came out of the squabbles looking the worse.

Robocalls are tacky even when they carry the best of messages. I hate it when I get a telephone call in the middle of dinner, and it’s just some machine playing a pre-recorded message to me from some politician who wants my vote. The message doesn’t let me talk back and give my opinion. It just gives me that robotic message and then hangs up.

How rude.

This politician thinks that I’m going to vote for someone who doesn’t even have the decency to have a human being talk to me? No. Politicians who use robocalls are indicating the disrespect they have for voters, and suggest that if they’re elected, they won’t listen.

Robocalls get even worse, though, when they’re used by a politician to attack another candidate. That’s what Hillary Clinton has been doing in South Carolina, and she’s been doing it to attack John Edwards. John Edwards, for goodness sakes!

Maybe this is why Hillary Clinton had such a miserable showing in South Carolina.

Interrupt voters’ private time to have a robot spew a negative message at them over the telephone? Only the Clintons could be so arrogant as to think that would help their campaign.

Whatever little tender moment Hillary Clinton was able to create in New Hampshire has been destroyed with tactics like this. Why can’t she learn to stay positive?

In his latest eruption of idiocy, Bill Clinton says of his wife Hillary, “She and John McCain are very close. They always laugh that if they wind up being the nominees of their parties, it would be the most civilized election in American history and probably put the voters to sleep.”

Ha. Ha. Ha… What?!?

Since when would it be a good thing to put the voters to sleep?

This statement by Bill Clinton is doing Hillary Clinton no favors. It exhibits everything that’s wrong with the Hillary Clinton campaign. As a senator, Hillary Clinton has made cozy allegiances with Republicans, and voted along with them to advance their agenda.

Hillary Clinton has become “very close” with John McCain, and will be civilized if she runs against him for President, but she treats Barack Obama like a dog, with robocalls that slur “Barack Hussein Obama”.

Why the hell would Democrats want a presidential nominee who treats Republicans with kid gloves, but attacks fellow Democrats with savagery?

Bill Clinton’s comment is also a not very subtle warning to the activist progressive Democratic grassroots: The Clintons will run a “civilized” campaign, which means that the backbone gets thrown out the window. Uppity grassroots Democrats who demand strong action against the Republicans will not be tolerated. Progressives will be shut out of the process. This confirms my suspicion that Bill Clinton is determined to keep new Democratic voters out of power.

Hey, if you want a Democratic presidential nominee who will go soft on the Republican agenda, and follow the Joseph Lieberman path of giving a big hug John McCain and his plans for an American presence in Iraq of 50 years, then Hillary Clinton is a good pick for you.

If you want a Democratic presidential nominee who will actually represent Democrats, then you’ll need to vote for someone else.

As for myself, let me make this clear, Bill Clinton: This Democrat will not go to sleep.

I’ve got a theory about Bill Clinton’s obnoxious behavior, coming up with inaccurate and crude slurs against Barack Obama. I think he knows that he looks like a jerk, and I think he knows that it disgusts voters, and I think that’s exactly what he wants.

The Hillary Clinton for President campaign has never sought to build a real network of grassroots support - not of the kind we saw developing in 2004. They know too that Barack Obama is attracting new voters to the presidential primaries, and that new voters are those who are the most likely to lose their resolve and not show up to vote when they become discouraged.

Hillary Clinton’s support, on the other hand, tends to come from the institutional Democratic Party and its extensions at the state and local level. Longtime Democrats who have been regular voters are more likely to support a candidate who reminds them of Democrats in the past, rather than someone who challenges Democrats to break with the past.

If voters are getting turned off by Bill Clinton’s smarmy attacks against Barack Obama, and want to stop participating in the 2008 presidential primary elections, it’s more likely that those who walk away in disgust will be Barack Obama’s supporters. I think that Bill Clinton knows that, and is purposefully trying to create low voter turnout in the Super Tuesday primaries, so that Hillary Clinton can win.

Consider how, every time that one of Bill Clinton’s stupid comments gets publicity in the news, he doesn’t apologize and back off. He comes out the next day and says something even more outrageous. Bill Clinton knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s trying to drive everyone out of the Democratic primaries except for the people who are supporters of the establishment Clinton machine, and will put up with anything that Bill Clinton does.

If Hillary Clinton loses the New Hampshire primary this coming Tuesday, it’s a sign that her campaign is serious trouble. A failure to come in first in New Hampshire could even put Clinton’s adopted home state of delegate-rich New York into play on Super Tuesday February 5th. If Hillary Clinton has to defend home turf, it will make it all the more difficult to her to win in other states.

It seems that Hillary Clinton’s vote in favor of George W. Bush’s plan to start a war in Iraq is finally coming back to haunt her. The strategy of the Clinton for President campaign of trying to establish her as invincible before any primaries or caucuses, as if the actual Democratic voters didn’t matter, was apparently also not a great way to endear her to the Democratic rank and file.

On top of Hillary Clinton’s stumble in Iowa, there’s news that the mood among New Hampshire Democrats is turning decidedly against her presidential campaign. At the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s 100 Club Dinner yesterday, Democrats booed when Hillary Clinton tried to attack Barack Obama and John Edwards. When Barack Obama took to the stage, however, the Democratic crowd erupted into enthusiastic applause, chanting his name and his trademark, Fired Up Ready To Go.

At another moment during Hillary Clinton’s speech, a Time Magazine reporter who attended writes, the Democratic audience let out “a noise that sounded like a thousand people collectively groaning”.

Things are not looking good for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. That doesn’t mean the election is over for her, but it does mean that all the hype for most of 2007 about her invincible status was nothing but the babbling of Washington D.C. insiders ignorant of the mood of actual Democratic voters across the country.

In 1972 I was 21 years old,  town campaign manager for the McGovern Presidential campaign,and as idealistic and devoted to McGovern as any young Obama supporter today.  What a high we experienced the night that McGovern won the nomination; what disappointment we felt the night of the election.  In time, information was discovered that the Republicans had hoped for, indeed, planned on a McGovern candidacy, as they viewed him as the weakest candidate. Yes, McGovern enjoyed tremendous support from a new generation of young voters; and yes, we couldn’t have made the Republicans — and I do mean Richard Nixon et al — happier.

One of the most disillusioning revelations post-election 1972 was that many Republicans had influenced the outcome of primaries by registering as Democrats precisely in order to vote for McGovern. It was, in fact, the first time that voters were allowed to switch their party on primary day in NJ, and the Republicans evidently took advantage of it. Over time, I learned the painful truth that political decisions do not necessarily reflect the will of the supporters of any position or candidate; elections and voters can be and are manipulated in many ways. Voter idealism is an opportunity for exploitation by manipulators with less than idealistic goals.

In 2008, I see this blind idealism again in the young, first-time-voters and caucus participants in Iowa and elsewhere. And it raises for me the same concerns that I wish I had seen in 1972 but could only perceive and understand retrospectively some years later.

Specifically, I find it alarming that, as of January 2nd,  70-something-% of Iowans who supported Obama and were polled were first time caucus-participants. 20% were reported to be Republicans who planned on changing party to support Obama in the caucus. And I believe around 30-40% were Independents who had not been drawn into a caucus ever before.

While this all sounds quite positive for Obama, lets stop and consider, first of all, that 20% of his supporters are Republicans. How likely is it that Republicans in Iowa — a state which has never elected a woman governor, congressman or senator, no less a Black one — are switching parties to vote for the first serious Black Democrat contender? Were they closeted progressives all these years, just waiting for the most sincere and true Democrat for change to run? If so, how did they miss Howard Dean in 2004? I think that the 20% Republican support can be explained as well if not better by the hypothesis that the Republicans are again trying to tip the caucus in favor of a candidate who ultimately would have great difficulty in winning the national election.

The 30-40% Independents who have never before found a candidate of either party to support at a caucus are equally, if not more, suspect. Mind you, these are people who would have not even come out  to support Iowa favorite son Tom Harkin when he ran in the past in Presidential primaries. Most Independents I know are proudly and stubbornly independent — they’re suspect of politics in general, eschew registering allegiance to ANY party, Dem, Repub or 3rd party, and do not mind one bit not being able to choose a party candidate during the primaries by maintaining their independent status. Are we to believe, without question, that such a large number of Independents have somehow shaken loose from their prized independent status because Obama is such a great candidate? I don’t think so.

Which brings us down to the great NON-QUESTION of the 2008 primaries: are Caucasian Americans really ready to vote for a Black/minority president? Well maybe this is less of a non-question than it is the non-discussed question of the season. Listening to a panel of supposed election experts from the far-right Enterprise Institute discussing possible primary outcome scenarios, I was almost convinced, as they insisted, that there just was no reason at all to think that race would influence voter preferences. I actually had to stop and think: wait a minute, there still is a serious underclass in the U.S., isnt there? and that underclass contains most of the 16% of Americans who are Black, right? (As Obama correctly noted recently, there are still more college-age young Black men in prison than there are in college — a statistic that has not changed since I first heard it reported 20 years ago.)  Of course other minorities are found in the underclass, but the majority of Blacks are found there.

Who keeps Blacks in the underclass? Certainly predominately white communities, companies, law firms, professional schools, etc.  But it happens daily in many ways and is ignored and hence implicitly supported by most Caucasian Americans.  Support for Obama is very real in some sectors, very politically correct in others. Don’t tell me that MANY Americans, of both parties, have not considered the possibility of and experience some trepidation when they envision a government dominated by Black Americans.

I’m not saying I’m among them. But when it comes to evaluating Obama’s true chances for winning a national election that requires winning the hard South and Conservative Western states, one simply can’t ignore the issue of race and how it could influence the outcome of the election.

Prove me wrong. Let’s start a real discussion of this important issue NOW, while the primary season is in its infancy. Let’s be conscious of the possibility of cynical manipulation of our youngest and often our most idealistic voters. Let’s pick a presidential candidate with our eyes, ears and minds open to the most critical question of electibility in November 2008.

Here’s a great indication of the difference between the current state of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party: During the Iowa caucuses, the web site of the Iowa Democratic Party is running smooth and fast. The web site of the Republican Party of Iowa, however, is running as slow as slugs, taking minutes to load, when it loads at all.

Take note, voters, of which political party is better able to execute a plan.

John Edwards supporters ought to be ashamed of themselves for bragging about the endorsement from Ralph Nader. Have they forgotten how Ralph Nader threw the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush? Now that Ralph Nader is endorsing John Edwards, a vote for Edwards is practically a vote for Bush.

Besides, John Edwards has really put all of his cards on the table. It’s Iowa or nothing for John Edwards, because he’s invested his campaign’s wealth there, organizing in the caucuses. If John Edwards doesn’t get first place in Iowa today, his campaign is dead in the water.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, doesn’t need to win Iowa at all in order to win the Democratic presidential nomination. Even if she comes in third place in the Iowa caucuses, it’s a sign of strength in her campaign, which invested little in Iowa.

Which kind of leader would you rather have for President - the kind who loses in second place, or the kind who wins even in third place? Hillary Clinton is the clear choice for voters today.

It’s becoming more clear that the real contest in the 2008 Democratic Party nomination is between Barack Obama and John Edwards. Hillary Clinton depended on the institutional support of right wing Democrats like James Carville, and a parade of corporate executives and lobbyists. She even hired the president of the PR firm that defended Blackwater mercenaries in Congress to be her campaign manager. She’s a longtime member of the right wing Democratic Leadership Council.

Put simply: Hillary Clinton is the Republican candidate of the Democratic Party, the Joseph Lieberman of 2008 presidential election.

So, it’s between Barack Obama and John Edwards to get the core of the Democratic Party vote - the support of voters who are smart enough to look for more than just nostalgia for the 1990s with the name of Clinton.

John Edwards got the support of Ralph Nader this week. Barack Obama got the support of Dennis Kucinich. That shows the world of difference between Barack Obama and John Edwards.

John Edwards spent just one term in the U.S. Senate, then quit when he couldn’t get re-elected. He’s done good work outside of the government, but he just can’t seem to manage to effectively use any government position. Isn’t Ralph Nader kind of like that?

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has been successful in using the power of government to do good from the state legislature in Illinois all the way on up. Obama sticks with it. Isn’t Dennis Kucinich kind of like that?

I say that in 2008, we need a President who is good at government, not someone who is good at picking from the outside.

In one of the most surprising endorsements of the 2008 presidential election, Ralph Nader has thrown his support to John Edwards for President, just a couple of days before the Iowa caucuses. The reason for Nader’s endorsement is very clear: Hillary Clinton is heavily associated with big corporate interest groups, and John Edwards offers the strongest voice in this year’s elections against corporate influence over America’s democratic government.

Nader said of Senator Clinton, “She has experience in the Senate, and what that experience has meant is going soft on cracking down on corporate crime, fraud, and abuse, soft on cutting tens of millions in corporate subsidies.” Yes, Hillary Clinton has experience, but it’s the wrong kind of experience - like her experience on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart.

Hillary Clinton is the wrong choice for the Democrats, and John Edwards is the strongest alternative.

Though some Green Party activists are still trying to draft Ralph Nader for President in 2008, it’s becoming very clear that Ralph Nader will not run, and that, if he does, almost nobody will vote for him. Endorsing John Edwards was the best play for influence that Nader could make.

I’m not a Republican myself. I’m a Democrat’s Democrat. Yet, I can recognize that many Americans are dedicated Republicans, and they have their needs too… needs that can be served by a good Democratic leader like Hillary Clinton.

Over at New York Newsday yesterday, there was a great story about a woman named Shannon Mallozzi. Mallozzi has been a Republican all her life, but she’s campaigning for Hillary Clinton now.

Republican Rupert Murdoch is supporting Hillary Clinton for President too. Plenty of Republicans supported Bill Clinton. If they supported one Clinton, they can support another.

I know that it’s supposed to be a political taboo to cross party lines and support someone on the other side. Haven’t we all had enough of those kind of rules now?

At long last, America can finally breathe a sigh of relief and come together. I think it’s time. Time for Republicans to support Hillary Clinton for President.

I am shocked to see someone who calls himself Frank Liberal daring to criticize Hillary Clinton, who has done more to carry water for liberal causes than Frank Liberal could hope to in an entire lifetime.

We have the duty to elect a Democrat as President in 2008, or we are serving the dark mission of the Republican Party. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that there is any other choice.

Yet, this Frank Liberal character chooses to focus on Hillary Clinton’s supposed schemes to spread lies about Barack Obama. Frank Liberal should concern himself with the lies of Rudolph Giuliani, not the lies of Hillary Clinton.

Whether or not we agree with all the policies and positions of a particular Democratic candidate, it is time for us to unite behind one Democratic candidate for 2008. The time for debate is over. America needs unity, and the unity candidate is Hillary Clinton!

Will the Clinton for President campaign have any staff left at the end of this week? I ask this question in light of last week’s discovery of the Clinton campaign’s shameful activities spreading malicious rumors about Barack Obama.

Barack Obama has become more successful with voters than Hillary Clinton, as voters have considered Senator Clinton’s questionable connections with corporate interests, and her less-than-progressive voting record in the Senate, including Clinton’s infamous vote to help George W. Bush start the war in Iraq.

In response, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has started spreading false rumors about Barack Obama’s religion, which shouldn’t even matter, and about Barack Obama’s behavior as a teenager, which has even less relevance.

When Clinton’s campaign was caught pushing these false rumors around, it fired a couple of staffers, as scapegoats, blaming the trouble on them. Hillary Clinton wouldn’t take responsibility herself. Besides, those campaign staffers were only fired after the story went public.

You don’t see Barack Obama engaging in this sort of skullduggery. He might criticize Hillary Clinton, but it’s on the issues. That’s why I support Barack Obama for President, not Hillary Clinton.

There’s only 24 hours left to help Beth raise funds for her PA 18 race against naughty Tim, whether it be 5, 10, or 25 dollars to help Tim start packing. Please consider helping out PA-18 because this is sadly our current Congressman in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUT3BEfcl-s

oh wait and also here on KDKA news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwh-OCFCOTc

You can help us change direction and priorities by donating the the Hafer campaign at:
www.gecturf.com/bhafer

Your donation is greatly appreciated in these last 24 hours!!!
Check out Beth’s recent labor endorsement at www.midatlanticlabor.org

Hello Everyone,

The online fundraiser for Beth Hafer, leading candidate in the PA 18th District starts at midnight tonight and lasts until 11:59pm on November 29th.  Please consider giving 5, 10, or 25 dollars to help us get the change we sorely need in leadership in PA-18.  Check out the challenge BELOW! With your help we can keep the great momentum going:

http://www.gecturf/bhafer

Also, for those of you who want to check out her webpage: www.haferforcongress.com to read about her recent CWA endorsement as well as events coming up in the Keystone state.  Your help is greatly appreciated! 

I guess Beth Hafer, the leading Democratic candidate to take on Tim Murphy in the PA 18th Congressional is having an online 72 hour fundraiser on November 27th to the 29th.  Help western PA with a 72 hr version of small change for bigger change.

The link is: http://www.gecturf.com/bhafer/

Seems like there has been alot of excitement and a great reponse for Democrat Hafer, who has great views on immediately changing course in Iraq and supporting working families instead of the large interest groups and CEOS (like Tim).  Tim Murphy recently voted against the Bridge fund to change course in Iraq from occupation to transition, as well as a program geared at providing assistance for those workers who lose their jobs as a result of bad trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA.  This war has costed Pennsylvania alot and we’ve lost over 202,000 good paying manufacturing jobs because Tim Murphy chose to rubber stamp President Bushes anti-worker policies.  Hafer’s successful first quarter was comparable to freshmen Congressmen Altmire and Murphy. 

Jesse

Westmoreland Co. PA

‘lo and behold, what do I find when I wake up and log into Yahoo this morning?

(link)

Bush vetoes water projects bill
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago

An increasingly confrontational President Bush on Friday vetoed a bill authorizing hundreds of popular water projects even though lawmakers can count enough votes to override him.

Bush brushed aside significant objections from Capitol Hill, even from Republicans, in thwarting legislation that provides money for projects like repairing hurricane damage, restoring wetlands and preventing flooding in communities across the nation.

This level of opposition virtually assured that Bush would have a veto overridden for the first time in his presidency. He has used the veto very sparingly for most of the time he has been in office, but has made more use of it recently.

“When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

“More than two years after failing to respond to the devastation and destruction of Hurricane Katrina, he is refusing to fund important projects guided by the Army Corps of Engineers that are essential to protecting the people of the Gulf Coast region.”

The $23 billion water bill passed in both chambers of Congress by well more than the two-thirds majority needed to vacate a veto and make the bill law.

Bush objected to the $9 billion in projects added during negotiations between the House and Senate. He hoped that his action, even though it is sure not to hold, would cast him as a friend to conservatives who demand a tighter rein on federal spending.

But Bush never vetoed spending bills under the Republican Congress, despite budgetary increases then, too. Attempting to demonstrate fiscal toughness now, in the seventh year of his presidency, carried the risk being criticized for doing too little, too late or as waging a transparently partisan attack against the Democrats who now run Capitol Hill.

The president took the gamble, making it part of a broader effort to more pointedly and frequently take on Democratic leaders.

The legislation originally approved by the Senate would have cost $14 billion and the House version would have totaled $15 billion. Bush and a few Republicans complained that the final version was larded with unneeded pet projects pushed by individual lawmakers — sending the overall cost of the bill much higher.

“Only in Washington could the House take a $14 billion bill into a conference with the Senate’s $15 billion bill and emerge with a compromise that costs taxpayers over $23 billion,” said White House press secretary Dana Perino.

She also said Bush vetoed the bill because it is “fiscally irresponsible” and falls outside the scope of the Army Corps’ mission.

Critics noted that the bill piles more work on the Army Corps of Engineers, which already has a backlog of $58 billion worth of projects and an annual budget of only about $2 billion to address them.

If Bush is overridden, the measure would give a green light to projects in virtually every state. It only authorizes the projects; the actual funding must be approved separately.

The authorizations include:

_$3.6 billion for major wetlands and other coastal restoration, flood control and dredging projects for Louisiana, a state where coastal erosion and storms have resulted in the disappearance of huge areas of land;

_nearly $2 billion for the restoration of the Florida Everglades;

_nearly $2 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to build seven new locks on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers;

_$7 billion for various projects related to hurricane mitigation in Mississippi and Louisiana, including assuring 100-year levee protection in New Orleans;

_hundreds of smaller dredging, wetlands restoration and flood control projects across the country.

The Congressional Budget office says the bill includes projects that, if fully funded, would cost $11.2 billion over the next four years and $12 billion in the decade after that. The bill also calls for increased oversight of the Corps, requiring an outside review of water construction projects.

The veto was Bush’s fifth. Four of those have come since Democrats took over Congress in January, but this one was unusual because it also pits the president against a sizable number of lawmakers from his own party. Previous Bush vetoes include two of bills allowing expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells, and a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq.

Last month, Bush vetoed a major expansion of a children’s health insurance program, also over objections from some Republicans. But he has far more partisan unity on that issue than on the water projects bill. It was the first time Bush went into a veto knowing it was a futile effort. This turns the tables somewhat on him, as he has been criticizing Democrats almost daily for wasting time by passing legislation they knew he would not accept.

Isn’t it funny that now that there’s a Democratic majority in Congress Bush is finally taking the packaging off his veto pen? Ain’t it also funny that Bush considers things that will cost around 14 billion over the next 14 years to help fix some badly needed things is “fiscally irresponsible” and yet I just found an article that report economists are speculating that the war in Iraq could balloon to over $1 TRILLION dollars. Whether that is true or not that same article is reporting that the daily cost is over $200 million a day.

Which is fiscally irresponsible? Adding in things to help protect American citizens from natural disasters and restore the environment for $14 billion, or continue an occupation of a foreign nation that serves as nothing but a black hole for the economy and is turning this into the most expensive military campaign in American history?

You want to be fiscally responsible? Pull troops out of Iraq and STOP GIVING TAX BREAKS TO COMPANIES FOR OUTSOURCING AMERICAN JOBS!

In North Carolina, Democratic candidate for the United States Senate Jim Neal has acknowledged that he is gay. Actually, he has never hidden that he is gay, so it’s kind of like Liza Minelli acknowledging that she has short hair.

The major point of communication from the Jim Neal for Senate campaign is that Neal’s sexual orientation is no big deal. My reaction to the news so far is in line with that. I read the news with a “hmm” and not much more.

What would be a big deal is if the North Carolina Democratic Party now rushes to find another candidate to challenge Senator Elizabeth Dole, because the Democratic Party isn’t willing to support an openly non-heterosexual candidate. That would be a big deal. It would be a sign of craven cowardice.

Good day. I would like to share with you the latest news from Bill Richardson on Mukasey and Waterboarding:

=======
10-19-07

In response to U.S. Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey’s refusal to say whether waterboarding is torture, New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson this morning issued the following statement:

“Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.

“Torture does not work. Mistreatment backfires and destroys our international leadership, as we saw with Abu Ghraib. Torture also endangers our own troops. The standards we adopt may well be what our own troops are subjected to.

“Anytime one makes a person think he or she is being executed, the very nature of waterboarding, it obviously is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, international law, and basic human decency.

“ABC News has described waterboarding as follows: ‘The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face, and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in, and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.’

“If another nation engaged in waterboarding against American citizens, we would denounce that country and call the practice barbaric, and rightly so.

“We must stand against torture without equivocation, without compromise, and without exception. Torture is a violation of everything we stand for as Americans and as human beings.”
======

Bill Richardson is the only candidate to stand up to George W. Bush and his designee Mukasey on Waterboarding. Vote Bill Richardson in 2008!

Bush veto of child health bill sustained
By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer 14 minutes ago

House Democrats on Thursday failed to override President Bush’s veto of their pre-election year effort to expand a popular government health insurance program to cover 10 million children.

The bill had bipartisan support, but the 273-156 roll call was 13 votes short of the two-thirds majority that supporters needed to enact the bill into law over Bush’s objections. The bill had passed the Senate with a veto-proof margin.

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program now subsidizes coverage for about 6 million children at a cost of about $5 billion a year. The vetoed bill would have added 4 million more children, most from low-income families, at a cost of $7 billion annually. About 600,000 adults also participate in the program.

To pay for the spending increase, the bill would have raised the federal tax on cigarettes from 39 cents to $1 a pack.

“This is not about an issue. It’s about a value,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said just before the vote. “For the cost of less than 40 days in Iraq, we can provide SCHIP coverage for 10 million children for one year.”

Forty-four Republicans voted to override Bush’s veto; that was one fewer than the number of GOP members who voted Sept. 25 to pass the bill. Only two Democrats voted to sustain Bush’s veto, compared with six who had voted against the bill. The two were Reps. Jim Marshall of Georgia and Gene Taylor of Mississippi.

“We won this round on SCHIP,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said. She said a million-dollar lobbying campaign by several labor unions and advocacy groups to turn enough Republican votes for a successful override did not work.

Bush, anticipating that the veto would stand, has assigned three top advisers, including Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, to try to negotiate a new deal with Congress.

“It’s now time for us to get to the hard work of finding a solution and get SCHIP reauthorized,” Leavitt said. “We also have a larger task, to provide every American with the means of having an insurance policy.”

Republican opponents of the bill said it would encourage too many middle-income families to substitute government-subsidized insurance for their private insurance. The bill would have given states financial incentives to cover families with incomes up to three times the federal poverty level — $61,950 for a family of four.

“That’s not low-income. That’s a majority of households in America,” said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.

The bill said that illegal immigrants would remain ineligible for the children’s program, but Republicans seized on a section that would have allowed families to provide a Social Security number to indicate citizenship. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said it is too easy to get a false number, which would give an opening for thousands of illegal immigrants to enroll.

But Democrats said the bill’s original focus remained intact. States would earn bonuses for signing up low-income children already eligible for the program but not enrolled.

“Under current law, these boys and girls are entitled to their benefits,” said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. “Continuing to not provide them with coverage is a travesty.”

Bush has recommended a $1 billion annual increase, bringing total spending over five years to $30 billion — half the level called for in the bill that he vetoed.

Some public opinion polls indicate support for expanding the program. Sixty-one percent said Congress should override Bush’s veto of a bill expanding the program, according to a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll released Wednesday. Blacks were more likely than whites to favor overriding Bush’s veto.

___

On the Net:

Information on the bill, H.R. 976, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/

(This version CORRECTS in the second paragraph `two-thirds that majority supporters’ to `two-thirds majority that supporters …’)

Yeah, here’s a surprise.

I still find republican hypocrisy rather amusing. It’d be downright funny if it didn’t harm so many people.

Peregrin Wood made an essential point last night when he observed that George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin have steered the United States and Russia into a new Cold War. Russia is now in a military alliance with Iran, and has sworn to protect Iran from any military attacks. American political leaders like Bush, and far too many Democrats, are at the same time pushing to start a new war against Iran.

What’s at stake? Imagine open warfare between the USA and Russia. Imagine nuclear war.

In this context, Hillary Clinton continues her insane brinksmanship, joining in the push to bomb Iran, saying that, “If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.”

Hillary Clinton’s approach to foreign policy is reckless. Clinton proved unable to show mature judgment when she supported George W. Bush on invading Iraq. She is now showing herself willing to repeat the mistake.

I want to vote for a President who will say no to the nonsense of more and more wars. I want a President who has enough imagination to see a world without Cold Wars against Russia. Hillary Clinton offers the same old path of destruction and failure.

My pick is Barack Obama, who has the courage to see a new generation of possibilities, and is not afraid to leave behind old, Washington insider ideas that just don’t work.

I caught this when I came online today and it got me to grin a bit.

[b]Dems: Override children’s health veto[/b]
By MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 51 minutes ago

Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana asked his colleagues on Saturday to override President Bush’s veto of legislation that would expand a popular children’s health insurance program.

“Every Republican must decide whether they will stand with the president and his veto, or stand with our children and their right to a healthy future,” Baucus said in his party’s weekly radio address.

House Democrats have scheduled for this week a vote to override the president’s veto of legislation that would increase spending for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. Bush has called for a $5 billion increase.

The effort is not expected to succeed. An override requires a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate, and the earlier House vote fell about two dozen votes short. The Senate approved the increase by a veto-proof margin.

The program provides health insurance to children in families with incomes too great for Medicaid eligibility but not enough to afford private insurance. Bush has said the bill is too costly, goes beyond the program’s original intent and shifts too much insurance burden onto the government rather than private providers.

Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said Tuesday that Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt had called him seeking to compromise on the bill, but he refused.

“We want to prevail,” Baucus said then.

He said Saturday that the president is telling millions of parents that they don’t deserve the same basic care for their kids that Bush had for his.

Are the Democrats finally growing a spine? Maybe not, but I still hope they can override this veto.

I want to send a wake-up call to Democrats who are supporting the campaign of Hillary Clinton for President: If you like Wal-Mart, you’ll love Hillary Clinton!

Who helped make Wal-Mart the gigantic, abusive economic and social force it is today? Hillary Clinton, did!

Hillary Clinton spent six years on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart, promoting its policies of selling cheap products made in sweatshops in countries like China, with outsourced jobs that have been taken from American workers. Hillary Clinton was there at the top of Wal-Mart right when Wal-Mart was engaged in some of its most outrageous union-busting actions.

The Village Voice has called Hillary Clinton’s record on labor “considerably worse than wobbly”. The paper also wrote of Clinton’s connection to the biggest of the big boxes, “Was Hillary the voice of conscience on the board for American and foreign workers? Contemporary accounts make no mention of that. They do describe her as a “corporate litigator” in those days, and they mention, speaking of environmental matters, that she also served on the board of Lafarge, a company that, according to a press account, once burned hazardous fuels to run its cement plants.”

Wake up, Democratic voters! Hillary Clinton is not your friend. She’s the representative of big corporations like Wal-Mart that rip the heart out of the American economy so that a few corporate executives can make a huge amount of money for themselves.

Hillary Clinton’s record at Wal-Mart shows that she is exactly the wrong sort of Democrat for us to nominate in 2008.

Read the Village Voice article.

A few mintues ago, J. Clifford reported on the link between Unity08 and Burson-Marsteller, the public relations firm that represented Blackwater USA, the company that sent mercenaries off to Iraq, where they have been caught shooting civilians without any provocation, not just once, but over and over and over and over again.

Well, here’s another political bombshell from this story - Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Mark Penn is CEO of Burson-Marsteller. The guy who is telling Hillary Clinton how to win the Democratic presidential nomination is the same guy who heads the firm that told Blackwater how to successfully evade being accountable to Congress!

The Hillary Clinton campaign is linked to Blackwater. Will Hillary Clinton fire Mark Penn? Don’t bet on it.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama has no ties to Blackwater. In 2008, we deserve the real deal. Vote Obama for President!

I’ve made my choice for the 2008 presidential election. I’m voting for Barack Obama for President!

What tipped it for me was this section of a speech that Barack Obama made two days ago:

“Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren’t really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That’s the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?”

It’s really a plain and simple moral choice between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton did what Barack Obama describes above. She wrote a blank check for Bush to go to war, and now she’s acting all outraged that Bush actually used the powers she gave him.

Barack Obama stood up and opposed the Iraq War when it counted, starting back in 2002. Read Barack Obama’s 2002 antiwar speech. He closed that speech with the following challenge to George W. Bush:

“You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.”

When has Hillary Clinton ever come close to taking this kind of principled stand? The answer is sadly clear. She hasn’t.

When America needed strong leaders, Barack Obama was strong. Hillary Clinton was weak, and made the easy choice instead of the choice that was right for America.

My choice for President is Barack Obama.

Now, it’s time for a new beginning for America. Read Barack Obama’s new speech from earlier this week.

Why be in denial? People who believe in a cause believe in it, act on that belief and the belief can be inferred from their actions.

It should be obvious to everyone, after today, as it has been obvious to many of us since the initial vote on the war, nearly five years ago now, that the Democrats always have favored the war, and there has never been any fundamental change in their attitude.

The vote in February to fund the war, and the current vote, speak louder than words.

Senate approves $150B in war funding

By ANNE FLAHERTY

Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

RED DAVE

Ordinarily, I’m not super fond of Senator Joseph Biden. Biden tends to bluster, and to tilt toward the right. However, I could help but applaud when I heard Joe Biden say the following words at last night’s Democratic presidential debate in Dartmouth, New Hampshire:

“Rudy Giuliani doesn’t know what the heck he’s talking about. He’s the most uninformed person in American foreign policy now running for President.”

Blast, Biden! Blast!

Bush: Kids’ health care will get vetoed

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 4 minutes ago

President Bush again called Democrats “irresponsible” on Saturday for pushing an expansion he opposes to a children’s health insurance program.

“Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed,” Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he made earlier in the week. “Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point.”

At issue is the Children’s Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program that subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, mostly children, in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage. It expires Sept. 30.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced a proposal Friday that would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The idea is overwhelmingly supported by Congress’ majority Democrats, who scheduled it for a vote Tuesday in the House. It has substantial Republican support as well.

But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it’s children who will suffer if they do not.

“Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage — not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage,” Bush said.

The bill’s backers have vigorously rejected Bush’s claim it would steer public money to families that can readily afford health insurance, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said.

Many governors want the flexibility to expand eligibility for the program. So the proposal would overturn recent guidelines from the administration making it difficult for states to steer CHIP funds to families with incomes exceeding 250 percent of the official poverty level.

You heard it, folks. Bush keeps flappin’ his gums about how important the kids are but when it comes right down to it what is his message?

Fuck the little bastards.

Hey I just saw this news piece on Bill Richardson and thought you might want to consider why Bill Richardson is the best candidate for President of the USA in the world we have today.

Why We Should Exit Iraq Now, by Bill Richardson

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly.

In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years — a tragic mistake.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be “irresponsible.” On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal — not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process —would be the most responsible and effective course of action.

Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the MiddleEast. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders,including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.

Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage and professionalism, but they cannot win someone else’s civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.

The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al- Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq’s oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the
terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border — not in Iraq.

Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route out through Turkey.

As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq’s neighbors will face the reality that if they don’t help with stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq’s collapse — including even greater refugee flows over their borders and possible war.

The United States can facilitate Iraqi reconciliation and regional
cooperation by holding a conference similar to that which brought peace to Bosnia. We will need regional security negotiations among all of Iraq’s neighbors and discussions of donations from wealthy nations — including oil- rich Muslim countries — to help rebuild Iraq. None of this can happen until we remove the biggest obstacle to diplomacy: the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.

My plan is realistic because:

It is less risky. Leaving forces behind leaves them vulnerable. Would we need another surge to protect them?

It gets our troops out of the quagmire and strengthens us for our real challenges. It is foolish to think that 20,000 to 75,000 troops could bring peace to Iraq when 160,000 have not. We need to get our troops out of the crossfire in Iraq so that we can defeat the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11.

By hastening the peace process, the likelihood of prolonged bloodshed is reduced. President Richard Nixon withdrew U.S. forces slowly from Vietnam — with disastrous consequences. Over the seven years it took to get our troops out, 21,000 more Americans and perhaps a million Vietnamese, most of them
civilians, died. All this death and destruction accomplished nothing — the communists took over as soon as we left.

My position has been clear since I entered this race: Remove all the troops and launch energetic diplomatic efforts in Iraq and internationally to bring stability. If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.

Let’s stop pretending that all Democratic plans are similar. The American people deserve precise answers from anyone who would be commander in chief. How many troops would you leave in Iraq? For how long? To do what, exactly? And the media should be asking these questions of the candidates, rather than allowing them to continue saying, “We are against the war . . . but please don’t read the small print.”

“New Realism: Crafting a US Foreign Policy for a New Century”
Governor Bill Richardson
Redacted from the Harvard International Review

US foreign policymakers face novel challenges in the 21st century. Jihadists
and environmental crises have replaced
armies and missiles as the greatest threats; globalization has eroded the significance of national borders. Many problems that were once national are now global, and dangers that once came only from states now come also from societies—not from hostile governments, but from hostile individuals or from impersonal social trends, such as the
consumption of fossil fuels. The piece does a credible job of laying out the problems before us and arguing that the Bush Administration has not taken the appropriate measures to deal with them.

The highlights of Richardson’s plans:

First and foremost, the United States must repair its alliances. US leaders also must restore commitment to international law and multilateral cooperation.

Promoting expansion of the UN Security Council’s permanent membership to include Japan, India, Germany, and one country each from Africa and Latin America.

Ethical reform at the United Nations so that this vital institution can help its many underdeveloped and destitute member states meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Expanding the G8 to include India and China.

The US government must join International Criminal Court and respect all international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions.”

On environmental issues, the United States must be the leader, not the laggard, in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by embracing the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, Lead the world with a man-on-the-moon effort to improve energy efficiency and to commercialize clean, alternative
technologies.

Stop considering diplomatic engagement with others as a reward for good behavior.

Various efforts including ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

The United States needs to start showing, both through its words and through its actions, that this is not, as the Jihadists claim, a clash of civilizations. Rather, it is a clash between civilization and barbarity.

Closing Guantanamo

The United States also needs to pressure Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other friends in the Arab world to reform their education systems, which are incubators of anti-US sentiment.

Spend more to develop first responders and to drastically improve public health facilities, which, five years after 9/11, are not ready for a biological attack.

The United States needs to lead the global fight against poverty, which is the basis of so much violence.

Encourage rich countries to honor UN Millennium goal commitments.

Lead donors on debt relief, shifting aid from loans to grants, and focus on primary health care and affordable vaccines.

Promote trade agreements, which create more jobs in all nations and which seriously address wage disparities, worker rights, and the environment.

Pressure pharmaceutical companies to allow expanded use of generic drugs, and encourage public-private partnerships to reduce costs and enhance access to anti-malarial drugs and bed nets.

Promote a multilateral Marshall Plan for the Middle East and North Africa.

__________________________________

I look forward to your comments.

This year, it’s difficult to appreciate the Democrats, what with their failure to follow through on the promises of the 2006 congressional election. I can, however, say this much:

While looking through the transcript of this morning’s Democratic presidential debate, I suddenly felt very thankful that, with all the shortcomings of these candidates, at least Joseph Lieberman is not amongst those running this time around.

It practically makes me want to go put on a hat with a belt buckle on it and shoot a turkey.

Word comes this evening that Republican Congressman Ray Lahood from Illinois will retire at the end of 2008. Representative Lahood is often described as a moderate Republican, and that’s half true. In our system of legislative rankings, Representative Lahood earns a rating of 42 out of 100 in our progressive scale. That’s not very good, but it’s better than most Republicans. On the other hand, Ray Lahood has a 60 out of 100 rating on our right wing scale. That’s not really a moderate position.

Nonethless, Ray Lahood’s district is a swing district in the sense that the number of voters who tend to vote Republican is pretty close to the number of voters who tend to vote Democrat. In the current anti-Republican mood, that makes it a reasonable assumption that the 18th congressional district of Illinois will go to a Democrat. In fact, it’s that likelihood that convinced Ray Lahood that another campaign for re-election might not be worth it.

The question is, which Democrat will replace Ray Lahood? No Democrat has announced an intention to run in the district yet. Any guesses?

On July 23, there will be a debate of the presidential candidates live on CNN. It’s at 7 o’clock PM — watch it! If you’re a Hillary Clinton supporter, you can go to a Hillary Clinton House Party near you. And if you want to submit a question, go to Youtube and send in your video. I love democracy in action. Wahoooooooooooooooo! (Go Clinton.)

Will you watch the debate? I know I will. CNN, 7pm, Sunday: be there!

At the end of last week, 86 Democratic members of the House of Representatives joined the Republicans. They voted to support George W. Bush, and give Bush the power to continue the Iraq War with no strings attached.

Back in 2006, is that what we elected the Democrats to a majority of Congress to do? No, the Democrats were elected to Congress in order to stop the war.

The Democratic members of the House that you see below voted for war at the end of the week, just before the Memorial Day weekend, hoping that we would all just forget about their treachery. No such luck for them. Now, at the beginning of the next week, we are calling them out.

The following Democrats in Congress decided to support George W. Bush instead of representing their constituents. They do not deserve to be re-elected in 2008.

Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania
Robert Andrews Andrews of New Jersey
Joseph Baca of California
Brian Baird of Washington
John Barrow of Georgia
Melissa Bean of Illinois
Shelley Berkley of Nevada
Marion Berry of Arkansas
Timothy Bishop of Georgia
Dan Boren of Oklahoma
Leonard Boswell of Iowa
Rick Boucher of Virginia
Allen Boyd of Florida
Nancy Boyda of Kansas
G. K. Butterfield of North Carolina
Dennis Cardoza of California
Christopher Carney of Pennsylvania
Ben Chandler of Kentucky
James Clyburn of South Carolina
James Cooper of Tennessee
James Costa of Californa
Bud Cramer of Alabama
Henry Cuellar of Texas
Susan Davis of California
Lincoln Davis of Tennessee
Norman Dicks of Washington
John Dingell of Michigan
Joe Donnelly of Indiana
Chet Edwards of Texas
Brad Ellsworth of Indiana
Rahm Emanuel of Illinois
Bob Etheridge of North Carolina
Gabrielle Giffords of Illinois
Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
Charles Gonzalez of Texas
Bart Gordon of Tennessee
Gene Green of Texas
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota
Baron Hill of Indiana
Ruben Hinojosa of Texas
Timothy Holden of Pennsylvania
Steny Hoyer of Maryland
Steven Kagen of Wisconsin
Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania
Dale Kildee of Michigan
Ron Kind of Wisconsin
Nick Lampson of Texas
Rick Larsen of Washington
Sander Levin of Michigan
Dan Lipinski of Illinois
Tim Mahoney of Florida
James Marshall of Georgia
James Matheson of Utah
Michael McIntyre of North Carolina
Kendrick Meek of Florida
Charles Melancon of Louisiana
Harry Mitchell of Arizona
Alan Mollohan of West Virginia
Dennis Moore of Kansas
John Murtha of Pennsylvania
Solomon Ortiz of Texas
Collin Peterson of Minnesota
Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota
Nick Rahall of West Virginia
Silvestre Reyes of Texas
Ciro Rodriguez of Texas
Mike Ross of Arkansas
Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland
John Salazar of Colorado
Allyson Schwartz of Pennsylvania
David Scott of Georgia
Joseph Sestak of Pennsylvania
Heath Shuler of North Carolina
Ike Skelton of Missouri
Vic Snyder of Arkansas
Zachary Space of Ohio
John Spratt of South Carolina
Bart Stupak of Michigan
John Tanner of Tennessee
Gene Taylor of Mississippi
Bennie Thompson of Mississippi
Mark Udall of Colorado
Peter Visclosky of Illinois
Timothy Walz of Minnesota
Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida
Charles Wilson of Ohio

Pro-war Democrats, every one. Remember how they betrayed the promise of 2006. Support the Democratic primary challengers against them.

Senator Hillary Clinton raised the ire of some Democrats when she voted to authorize a possible Iraq war in 2002. I say “some” because at that time, a number of Democrats as well as Republicans thought it was a good idea. Let’s not engage in historical revisionism on that point. Still, though, Senator Clinton has done a lot of thinking, studying, watching and reconsidering, and that’s what a good leader should do. Last night, Senator Hillary Clinton decided that enough was enough, and she voted a firm “NO” on sending President Bush another blank check for Iraq. Clinton explained her vote:

“Tonight I voted against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill because it fails to compel the President to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq. I believe that the President should begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq and abandon this escalation. I fully support our troops, and wish the President had followed the will of the people and signed the original bill we sent which both funded the troops and set a new course of phased redeployment. But the President vetoed Congress’s new strategy and so Congress must reject the President’s failed policies. I will also continue to press with Senator Byrd for our legislation to end the authorization of the war in Iraq.”

Understand what Senator Clinton has done here. She has firmly, finally, joined the anti-war contingent of Americans that is our new majority. She passes my test.

The following United States Senators have decided to do the right thing. They have decided to vote against the Democratic leadership’s plan to allow George W. Bush to continue the war in Iraq with no strings attached:

Chris Dodd*
Russ Feingold
John Kerry
Bernard Sanders

*You may not know this, if you only pay attention to the front runners, but Senator Chris Dodd is running for President in 2008. Give his campaign a second look today.

Give the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama a mouthful. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are waffling. Their backbones are wobbling. They say that, gosh, they just aren’t sure whether it’s a good idea to vote against an open-ended, no-restrictions reapproval of the war in Iraq.

What the hell are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton thinking?!?

Sadly, it’s all too familiar what the other Democratic senator running for President, Joseph Biden, is thinking. Senator Biden is thinking that now that Joseph Lieberman is an independent, he has a shot at becoming George W. Bush’s new favorite Democrat. He deserves the nickname Blank Check Biden.

Joseph Biden says he will vote in favor of reapproving and refunding the war in Iraq, giving George W. Bush exactly what he wants.

Don’t just look at the campaign rhetoric of the Democratic candidates for President. Look at their actions. The actions of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joseph Biden this week show that their opposition to the Iraq War is weak. They’re looking like posers who say that they’re against the war in Iraq, but won’t lift a finger to do anything about it.

Shame on them. We need stronger leadership than what they have to offer.

Read here about Hillary Clinton’s willingness to quietly, without fanfare or fuss, reach across the aisle to George Herbert Walker Bush, the president of the early 1990s. While Barack Obama speaks in soaring cadences about reaching across partisan divisions, Hillary Clinton is doing it. George Herbert Walker Bush has come to admire Hillary Clinton’s wit and wisdom. I look forward to her entering the White House as president and building those kind of cross-party alliances full-time.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are, jointly, the strongest threat to Republican dominance in a generation. So it should come as no surprise (CNN) that frustrated conservative students are plotting to kill Hillary Clinton, and that Barack Obama has had to get a Secret Service detail. Some Republican Party members cannot deal with the fact that the Democratic Party and its idealistic vision for America are ascendant — and so, like they did with Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, the Republicans are planning to kill Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Any such attempt will only more openly expose the Republicans for the hatemongers they are.

I read an article in this morning’s New York Times about how Barack Obama went from describing himself as a skeptic to describing himself as a Christian believer. Not so coincidentally, this conversion from skepticism to religious faith took place at the same time that Obama began his political career.

Now, as I hear Barack Obama give his speeches, it seems that he’s trying to use religious tones to get citizens to give their support based on the power of feeling rather than the power of depth and sense. It all seems like a self-conscious put-on, like Obama believes what everyone else says about him, and loves the sound of his own voice.

Maybe Barack Obama has picked up the support of a lot of religious voters with this approach. I can say this for me, however. The more that Barack Obama goes along using religion as a prop in his campaign, the less I identify with his campaign. I would appreciate a genuinely skeptical candidate, smart enough to doubt when doubt is called for, rather than a candidate who is willing to surrender skepticism when the call to power is heard.

Over at the California Progress Report I read something that strongly resonated with me:

“The San Francisco Chronicle article in this morning’s paper, summed up the situation in a nutshell with the following paragraph which I think hit the nail on the head:

Parsing through both her speech and that of Obama, it is hard to find major differences on issues and policies, and most delegates were hard pressed to articulate the differences, except on the perhaps on the war in Iraq, where both candidates favor withdrawal and have voted for withdrawal of troops. When it comes to the issues of health care, education, the environment, there is broad general agreement.”

I felt this watching the debate, too: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama don’t really have that much policy difference between them. Senator Clinton emphasizes expanded health care coverage a great deal more, but Senator Obama does not disagree with that. Senator Obama likes to talk about how he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning,” which is really convenient because he was not in the position of having to do anything about it at the time, but now Senator Clinton has essentially moved to his position on the war (surprise, people of excellent minds reconsider and change).

The main differences between them are:

1. OK, I admit it, Barack Obama can be more fiery at times on the stump. He is a grassroots organizer. Hillary Clinton has extensive contacts within the political establishment and works well with the movers and shakers.

2. Hillary Clinton has a lot more experience, going back to the 1970s, in politics, advocacy and government. Barack Obama’s experience is good. But you just can’t deny that Hillary Clinton has more experience.

The two most popular Democratic politicians have different styles and appeals. They can speak effectively to different audiences. They have similar or at least compatible policy agendas. And while Barack Obama certainly has enough experience to be president, Hillary Clinton has a great deal more experience than the more junior Senator does.

The conclusion is obvious to me: our party’s ticket in 2008 should be a Clinton-Obama ticket. Then, in 2016, Barack Obama should run for president in his own right, capping off the Clinton legacy with one of his own.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
P.S. People here have been casting aspersions upon me without any proof. This is why I do not respond in comment sections of blogs; I know from hard experience that very hurtful flame wars happen there. Yes, I am a Hillary Clinton fanatic. No, I do not work for the Hillary Clinton campaign. I am a citizen who cares very, very, very much. That is all you need to know.

The winner of the South Carolina Democratic Presidential Debates, the first in a season of debates, was in my mind without a doubt Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton completely defied her image as shrill by expressing herself humbly, admitting her mistakes, and laying out her political case in a clear and concise way. I liked the Senator’s no-nonsense style in presenting her ideas without getting hyper (Gravel) or rambling (Richardson) or fake (Edwards). Don’t get me wrong: I agree with Senator Joseph Biden who said that [almost] any of the people on that stage last night would make an excellent president. But the person in the debate to whom most people on stage and off looked for guidance, the person who made the strongest case in the short time allotted to her, was Hillary Rodham Clinton. Senator Biden’s best line of the night: “Whichever Republicans think they really want Hillary Clinton as an opponent are either stupid or crazy.” She showed she was a real competitor last night.

Please consider sending a campaign contribution to help Hillary Clinton become our next president. Visit HillaryClinton.com now!

Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland was the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate (rather than be appointed first). And now Barbara Mikulski is endorsing another first: the first woman president, Hillary Clinton. Says Mikulski:

“She works every day to advance women’s rights, by standing up for the women’s basketball team at Rutgers and leading the legislative effort for equal pay to become a reality for women. As the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate in my own right, I am honored to join Senator Clinton in this historic effort to break the last barrier for women in public life.”

Senator Hillary Clinton reacted to the 5-4 Gonzales v. Carhart decision the same day:

“This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.”

Senator Clinton wouldn’t have put John Roberts and Sam Alito on the bench. That’s why we need to make sure that Senator Clinton, our party’s best bet in 2008, receives all the support she can get. Please consider making a donation today: any amount will be of great help not just to Senator Clinton’s campaign but to the reproductive rights of women across the country.

President Bush doesn’t want Americans to do anything besides go shopping. But President Clinton would ask more of Americans. Senator Hillary Clinton has announced her plan to form a national Public Service Academy: “Modeled after the military service academies, the Public Service Academy would provide a four-year, federally subsidized college education for more than 5,000 students a year in exchange for a five-year commitment to public service following graduation. Graduates of the Academy would serve their country for five years, creating a new generation of young people dedicated to public service.” We could have a new, even greater Greatest Generation if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

Senator Hillary Clinton is using the bully pulpit of her presidential campaign to promote activism among citizens. Sign the petition Clinton started that demands Alberto Gonzales resign for inserting politics into Justice and then LYING about it. Unforgiveable! Thank you, Hillary Clinton, for giving Americans something better to do about injustice in the world than going shopping for duct tape.

Bush does it again. Everyone remember when King Shrub II got John Bolton jammed into the UN? Welp, he’s repeated his antics only this time with Belgium. Let’s read, shall we?

Bush Bypasses Senate to Name Ambassador

Bush bypasses Senate to name ambassador
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 38 minutes ago

President Bush named Republican fundraiser Sam Fox as U.S. ambassador to Belgium on Wednesday, using a maneuver that allowed him to bypass Congress, where Democrats had derailed Fox’s nomination.

The appointment, made while lawmakers were out of town on spring break, prompted angry rebukes from Democrats, who said Bush’s action may even be illegal.

Democrats had denounced Fox for his donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential campaign. The group’s TV ads, which claimed that Sen. John Kerry exaggerated his military record in Vietnam, were viewed as a major factor in the Massachusetts Democrat’s election loss.

Recognizing Fox did not have the votes to obtain Senate confirmation in the Foreign Relations Committee, Bush withdrew the nomination last week. On Wednesday, with the Senate on a one-week break, the president used his power to make recess appointments to put Fox in the job without Senate confirmation.

This means Fox can remain ambassador until the end of the next session of Congress, effectively through the end of the Bush presidency.

“It’s sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate,” Kerry said in a statement.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he plans to ask the Government Accountability Office to issue an opinion on whether the recess appointment is legal.

Recess appointments are intended to give the president flexibility if Congress is out for a lengthy period of time, such as the four-week adjournment in summer. But Dodd said the law was not intended to circumvent lawmakers’ approval.

“This is really now taking the recess appointment vehicle and abusing this beyond anyone’s imagination,” said Dodd, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. “This is a travesty.”

Bush also used his recess appointment authority to make Andrew Biggs deputy director of Social Security. The president’s earlier nomination of Biggs, an outspoken advocate of partially privatizing the government’s retirement program, was rejected by Senate Democrats in February.

Presidents since George Washington have made appointments during congressional recesses to fill positions in the executive and judicial branches. Bush has used the authority more frequently than some — but not all — of his most recent predecessors, making 171 so far, compared with 140 for President Clinton over two terms, 77 by his father in one term and 243 by President Reagan during two terms.

Some of Bush’s more notable recess appointments include John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton arrived at the U.N. in August 2005 after being appointed during a congressional recess because he twice failed to be confirmed by the Senate. Still unable to get Senate backing, he stepped down in December.

Others include include William Pryor and Charles Pickering (news, bio, voting record) as federal appeals court judges, in 2004, and Otto Reich as an assistant secretary of state, in 2002.

Fox, a 77-year-old St. Louis businessman, gave $50,000 to the Swift Boat group. He is national chairman of the Jewish Republican Coalition and was dubbed a “ranger” by Bush’s 2004 campaign for raising at least $200,000. He is founder and chairman of the Clayton, Mo.-based Harbour Group, which specializes in the takeover of manufacturing companies.

Fox has donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates and causes since the 1990s.

In answer to questions about the Swift Boat donation, Fox has said he gives when asked, insisting he was not involved with the writing of the ad scripts and never saw them before they aired but had been aware of the general thrust of the group.

Fox issued a statement saying he is “delighted and honored” to accept the ambassadorial appointment.

“As the son of a man who fled Europe to find freedom and a better life, I am especially humbled by the opportunity to return to that continent as this nation’s representative,” he said.

While Mitt Romney could only get $20 million in contributions, Rudy Giuliani had just $15 million and John McCain had to settle for a paltry $12.5 million, Hillary Clinton dominated with $26 million in campaign contributions. Hillary Clinton is simply dominant. And what is much more impressive than even that is that Senator Clinton managed to collect her $26 million in contributions with 80% of donors giving just $100 or less. These 80% — some 40,000 donors — represent the American heartland, not some bigwigs, and they will be able to give again and again and again as Senator Clinton needs the money without hitting campaign contribution maximums. The numbers alone show that Hillary Clinton is on her way to an impressive, dominating presence in the 2008 campaign. The big boys of Republican politics have nothing to show compared to Hillary Clinton.

… for right-wing nut cases, is that she is a woman and not ashamed of it. Yes, the Christian fundies have their knickers in a twist over the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman and not just content to stand by her man, but determined to run for President.

But isn’t it great that just about everyone else isn’t focussing on what it means that Hillary Clinton is a woman? Senator Clinton is being evaluated for her policy positions and her stated priorities for a presidency. Know what that means? It means that most of us in America (Christian fundies) excluded have grown up and started looking at a leader’s content of character and history of action. Aren’t you proud to see this come to pass?